Apparently the rockets possessed by Hezbollah are quite shabby, they miss their targets quite often, but that isn’t really the point of this post. This Sandmonkey poses some really great and insightful questions to people of all ethnic backgrounds concerning the ongoing fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, in Lebanon.
Impressed by this point of view that I haven’t considerd before, I asked him what he would’ve thought, if a Hezbollah rocket had attacked a building in Israel, killing 55 civillians, of which 30 were children. He responded immeidtely “I would’ve thought it was great! A7san!”.
So I repeated the same question to 8 other co-workers, and the responses so far have been as follows: 7 said they would celebrate, and 2 said that such an attack would’ve been bad, but justified! Yeah! Not a single person said that the death of any civllian, on either side, is an equal tragedy. Civillians dead on our side is tragic, civillian deaths on their side cause for celebration. And if you think I am being unfair or demonizing arabs or whatever, do me a favor and try it at your work place and/or with members of your family. Conduct this little social experiment and see for yourself. The results are very interesting.
There’s an extensivelistof very well thought out comments to read through too. As you can imagine, some comments are quite heated.
The owner of the famous Sandmonkey blog, who published a Poem that encoruages Israel to flatten Hezbollah a couple of days ago, has said that Israel has encouraged a new generation of arab liberal to hate it.
The BBC article author flat out lied in his article, saying Sandmonkey published a poem encouraging Israel to flatten Hezbollah. That’s not the impression I got from the “Some slightly uncomfortable questions” post. I think that BBC author has gotten himself in more trouble than he probably knows. I think Sandmonkey is contemplating suing for libel. I hope he does.
Go Isreal! Tear those Hezbollah pansies down! w00t! Seriously though, Israel is doing a good thing by attacking Hezbollah and Lebanon. They’re simply defending what’s theirs. Had Israel been left alone they wouldn’t have gone on the offensive. Civilians are going to die, there’s absolutely, positively no way to avoid civilian casualties when you’re firing rockets back and forth. This guy’s pissed off about the Israeli girls putting “greeting” messages on rockets being launched from Israel. The messages are, of course, intended for the Hezbollah members on the receiving end, not for the kids and other civilians that get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
It really warms my heart to see those little girls writing on the shells. Arabs have been teaching their kids to hate Israelis for how long now? Israel has long been the target of Arab nations. It’s so freakin asinine how people and more specifically Muslims/Arabs get upset when Israel starts defending itself. I really think we’re probably seeing the beginning of World War III. I knew it’d happen within 5 years.
The Dreamhost outage yesterday is now resolved. Four separate issues all came to light at roughly the same time, taking a good portion of Dreamhosts services offline. I personally assumed the Dreamhost outage was due to the poor connectivity between Level3 and Internap lastnight. See this image:
It doesn’t sound like the Dreamhost issues had anything to do with their connectivity providers, but I’m glad they’re back up and running. I wonder who Dreamhost gets their connections from, probably a few different providers.
Is the Dreamhost outage the cause for high search rankings of “World War III” on Technorati? No, but it is pretty amusing that Dreamhost is one of the top technorati searches. It somehow doesn’t fit in with the rest of the top searches: “World War III”, “Lebanon”, “Israel”, and of course, “Bush”. Where’s “Hezbollah”?? heh.
In a White House that had virtually forgotten what good news looks like, the past few weeks have been refreshing. A Republican won a much-watched special congressional election. President Bush recruited a Wall Street heavy hitter as Treasury secretary. U.S. forces killed the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. And now the architect of the Bush presidency has avoided criminal charges.
The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a big one. That guy has been responsible for so much violence in Iraq, it’s great seeing him bite the dust.
With Zarqawi dead, a new Baghdad government in place and Rove freed from prosecutor’s cross hairs, the White House hopes it can pivot to a new stage in which it is no longer on the defensive. In recent weeks, under new Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten, the White House has tried to do more to set an agenda, moving aggressively into the immigration debate and agreeing to join direct talks with Iran over its nuclear program under certain conditions.
Anyway, Bush made a “secret” visit to Iraq yesterday. Some think he may be laying the groundwork for troop reductions in Iraq. I don’t really see that though. To me it seems to be more of a pep-rally sort of thing. Bush was there letting everyone know that we need to stay until the job is done. Or at least until the Iraqi forces are able to handle the insurgents on their own. Even when the Iraqi forces are ready, we should still maintain a military force in the country, just to ensure the job is done right. It’d be terribly depressing if the country fell into a civil war or something once the U.S. packs up and leaves. In my eyes, we need to have a decent number of troops there for the next 50 years, just to protect our investment. “Our investment” being the nation of Iraq itself, not their oil.
Flopping Aces has some nice pictures and a video. Hot Air also has the video and a link to the transcript from Bush’s speech.
In a joint news conference, Bush said he had used inappropriate “tough talk” — such as saying “bring ’em on” in reference to insurgents — that he said “sent the wrong signal to people.” He also said the “biggest mistake” for the United States was the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, in which guards photographed themselves sexually tormenting Iraqi prisoners, spawning revulsion worldwide. “We’ve been paying for that for a long period of time,” he said.
George Galloway used this as an opportunity to attack Tony Blair, saying “it would be entirely logical and explicable” for him to die via suicide bomber. Galloway is obviously off his rocker. The fact that he even suggests a suicide bombing to kill Blair is sick. Let’s face it, suicide bombings are a pretty sleazy and cowardly way to take a life.
The Respect MP George Galloway has said it would be morally justified for a suicide bomber to murder Tony Blair.
In an interview with GQ magazine, the reporter asked him: “Would the assassination of, say, Tony Blair by a suicide bomber – if there were no other casualties – be justified as revenge for the war on Iraq?”
Mr Galloway replied: “Yes, it would be morally justified. I am not calling for it – but if it happened it would be of a wholly different moral order to the events of 7/7. It would be entirely logical and explicable. And morally equivalent to ordering the deaths of thousands of innocent people in Iraq – as Blair did.”
Whose side are you on Galloway? Wait, I don’t think you should answer that. Decision ’08 asks a good question, “George Galloway: Human Or Snake?”
Sister Toldjah is wondering if Galloway can be censured in front of the Parliament for his remarks. I would certainly think so, wether any action is actually taken against Galloway is probably up for debate.